Smoking should be banned in council housing, public health chief says

Smoking should be banned in all new council houses to protect children from harmful second-hand smoke, a public health chief has said.

Anti-smoking campaigners consider smoke-free housing to be the next major frontier in reducing the harmful effects of passive smoking.

In 2015, the Government introduced a ban on smoking in all vehicles carrying children.

“Housing associations and councils are looking at smoke-free housing buildings. Where children are involved I think there is a real case for it,” Dr John Middleton, president of the Faculty of Public Health, told The Sunday Times.

Dr Middleton said he believed housing association residents should sign contracts which would make non-smoking a condition of their tenancy.

“You wouldn’t evict a load of tenants for smoking. Where you have got new premises, you could have smoke-free agreements from the start," he said.

In the United States, the Obama administration passed a federal law which banned smoking in all public housing - the equivalent to UK social housing - in November last year.

The legislation, which will come into effect in August 2018, will affect more than million homes. In New York alone, which has the largest public housing agency in the country, 400,000 people will be bound by non-smoking agreements.

Pro-smoking campaign Forest said the proposed policy “would penalise unfairly those who can’t afford to buy their own homes”.

Why just social housing?! Why not every private house aswell? Are homeowner's children not as important as social housing children? Personally I think smoking should be banned in every public place like bus stops, outside schools, busy town centres etc. This law sounds a bit prejudice imo.

You can't usually smoke in a private rental so I don't see why this is any different. It's ultimately not your house so you have to follow whatever rules are set, whether that's no washing hung out on the balcony, no pets or no smoking.

I don't even smoke (while sober, anyway ...) and, and I still find this really invasive. Not to mention that, as has been mentioned above, it essentially amounts to economic discrimination against those unable to afford their own home.

Oh so the oh-so-trustworthy rich homeowner can do whatever they like around the kids, but those scummy council house tenants can't be trusted huh??

It's just another extension to the current narrative that poorer families in social housing can't be trusted to parent "properly", make the right decisions, or do anything except drink Stella and smoke like chimneys.

Fine if they were to ban it in every home, but any other law is out and out economic discrimination.But they won't because "an Englishman's home is his castle" (unless you are poor, or rent, or claim any sort of benefit)

And if you are poor, or rent, any and all choices you make are up for public scrutiny, but god forbid we should criticise the mega rich/ bankers or politicians for their personal choices, despite some of those choices being at the expense of the average family/worker.

It's essentially telling social housing tenants that they are in thrall to their masters, and they should remember their place (i.e. bottom of the heap).It's their home, and I would imagine that most people in social housing are unable to afford the option of owning their own house.

I was quite conflicted at first, as I agree totally with the premise behind it - I'm a smoker myself, but I never smoke in the house (not even hanging out the back door).

However, on balance, I don't agree with the idea that the state can prescribe a lifestyle to a group of people that doesn't apply to all.

It's banned in private rentals and just like asking permission for pets sometimes it's a no. At the end of the day unless you own the house you follow the rules. Your also not allowed to build extensions or knock down walls but nobody argues a tenant should be allowed to do that.

I think it's a step in the right direction, and it's nothing to do with trusting homeowners over tenants. It's simply the people who own the houses deciding what can and can't happen in them, there are lots of clauses put down by councils.

Your also not allowed to build extensions or knock down walls but nobody argues a tenant should be allowed to do that.

Well no. Because that would be making extensive structural alterations to the property. Rather than having a fag which, yes, impacts your health and those of the people living with you, but doesn't materially alter the property.

Sounds fine to me. Most private rentals ask you to smoke outside, why should it be different for council rent? It's not saying "quit smoking if you live in a council house", it's saying "do it outside so you're not poisoning your child".

Oozing residue? I think that must be fairly unusual. I think having to deep clean, redecorate and clean carpets/curtains/upholstery is quite usual and reasonable if you're letting a property. I would regard that as fair use / wear and tear.

I hate the way 'society' tries to police the poor; that they're not 'allowed ' Sky TV, mobile phones, holidays etc. It's disgusting.. This makes no sense. Nobody is 'not allowed' any of the above. Affordability and circumstances certainly play a part, but nobody tries to police anybody re these things. Smoking in a rental property be it private or council is an entirely different matter. I don't even know where you pulled the comparison to sky tv or a mobile phone from